THE disdain of Additional Sessions Judge Shiv Narayan Dhingra for politics and politicians is no secret to his colleagues at East Delhi's Shahadra district courts. Last week, this disdain was starkly reflected in his order denying former Union minister and TADA detainee Kalpnath Rai permission to attend Parliament, an institution he termed a fish market.
Dhingra's strong observations on the criminal-politician nexus put the hawala issue on the back-burner on the opening day of the budget session, as Opposition and treasury benches unitedly condemned him. Speaker Shivraj Patil—who had apparently made ineffectual efforts to contact the judge for an explanation so that he could make a statement in the House—promised to take it up with the Chief Justice of India. But it was the Delhi High Court which defused the matter by issuing a sharp admonition to Dhingra.
Dhingra's colleagues say he is in a combative mood, unfazed by Parliament's condemnation of his observations. In fact, he is reportedly not averse to being summoned before the House to explain his observations, as some MPs have demanded. Lawyers say that while Dhingra articulated what most citizens feel, he went a little over the top. Especially given the fact that his order comes at a time when the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature is rather delicately balanced.
Bar Council chairman R.K. Anand, who appeared before Dhingra recently in defense of former Union minister H.K.L. Bhagat, sees a prima facie case of breach of privilege. "Condemning politicians may be acceptable. But you cannot attack Parliament," he says. However, lawyer Mahesh Saxena who practices at the Shahdara courts feels it was a good judgement and the objectionable parts are a matter of interpretation.
Soft-spoken, slight and habitually cheerful, Dhingra hardly looks a firebrand. But his reputation for unshakeable probity is matched only by one for uncompromising strictness. He is both respected and feared for having the courage of his convictions. "He is very stern and cannot be influenced by anyone or anything, except his own opinion," says Saxena. That has not endeared him to many members of the bar, who regard him as unpredictable and feel his strong opinions sometimes bias his judgements.
"He makes up his mind beforehand and sometimes does not even listen to the lawyer's argument," comments Mukesh Kumar. The Bar Council of India passed a resolution against him last month, when two lawyers complained that he was trying to 'involve' them in the 1984 riots case.
Ironically, Dhingra's observations in the Bhagat case were equally critical of the political establishment, but did not attract the wrath of Parliament. "Civilised society appears to be disintegrating when a corrupt customs officer is caught red-handed and the entire department goes on strike...when a political leader is sought to be arrested for some crime, he, along with his supporters, creates a riot-like situation...when a chief minister gets a dreaded criminal released on parole and shares a political platform with him....and when a Central minister plays host to a hit man of Dawood," he said.
It was Dhingra who took up the 1984 riots case which had not progressed for 11 years and recorded the statement of a widow, Satnami Bai, who charged Bhagat with having personally led a mob in east Delhi during the '84 riots.
Dhingra's route to the bench was a rather roundabout one. An engineering graduate, he worked with the Ministry of Defence for five years, before quitting to get a law degree. Although he is an advocate on record at the Supreme Court and also registered with the Institute of Company Secretaries, being a lawyer did not appeal to him. Financially comfortable and a believer in simple living, Dhingra has been heard to say that the practice of law is geared to money-making rather than delivering justice. In 1988, he joined the bench and six years later, was appointed to the designated TADA court. The ASJ apparently regards himself as the common man's judge.
Dhingra is known to be a workaholic who rarely has more than seven or eight cases pending. At the time when he joined the TADA court, there were more than 250 cases waiting to be heard and he has cleared the lot. Publicity shy, he refuses to be photographed or to speak to members of the press. But he does admit that one of the things that annoys him is the high rate of acquittal in India. He is fond of quoting the conviction rates in Japan (over 99 per cent). Last week, he told a friend: "It is easier to acquit than to convict". And Shiv Narayan Dhingra is not known for taking the easy way out.
